User talk:MBisanz

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

Rename the username, 17 october 2012

hello MBisanz, please rename my username.

AfD relists

Hi MBisanz. I've been told by an admin, User:Jenks24 and I've seen on another admin, User:Scottywong's talk page that AfDs should not be relisted more than 2 times. And in rare cases, they can be relisted 3 times. I saw that you have made many relists; many of which were the third relist and also a 4th relist. According to what I've seen and have been told, the 4th one was not needed and it should have been closed last time. Few other relists that you did (3rd relists), I feel that weren't of much use. I appreciate you taking up the task of relisting which is obviously needed but I'm just asking for cutting down the relists that are made on a single page. Thanks. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. My thought is that it's worth relisting a couple extra times to force others to comment so that if the result is a deletion, a year down the road a random person can't challenge the AFD result on a lack of participation. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about this. There's an editor that has nominated over a dozen articles for deletion this week that I know of; part of a list of about 50 I've created or worked on. One, Trance Mission, was just relisted by you, with 8 "keep" comments and 3 "deletes". But hours ago David Jay Brown was deleted with the "votes" even; 6 on each side[1]. It seems to me that THAT one needed more time, not this one[2].

A couple of the keep commenters at Trance seem to have a faulty understanding of how deletion discussions work and I wanted to give additional time for more experienced users to comment. I didn't close the other AFD, but it appears the removal of inexperienced user comments to retain showed that discussion to have a consensus to delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? See, I would have said the exact opposite. The Trance Mission nom had all the actual discussion on the Keep side, with the nominator starting it off with a screed attacking the creator in a very uncivil way, and the rest rather uninformative. On the other hand, the David Jay Brown nom seemed split, with another incredible screed against the creator, and each side having both some editors explaining their positions and others just rubber-stamping ("Delete this shit" springs to mind as a less than cogent argument).Rosencomet (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to challenge an AfD decision, Deletion review is the place. If you keep forum shopping, someone will eventually drag you to ANI. With Trance Mission, I would have said User:Michig and User:The Steve are quite experienced - Michig particularly is something of a world music buff, and he has turned up sources appropriate to the field. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Michig usually is on-point with his AFD comments. I don't know about the closed article, it just seemed low-cost to make sure the Trance one closes with enough comments to outweigh any SPAs. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also to bear in mind is the guideline at WP:CLOSEAFD, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Qworty (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but a chorus of policy-based arguments is more desirable than a lone voice in the wilderness. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not challenging anything at this time, and I'm not forum shopping (at least I don't think so; I may not understand the term). I was just confused about this; I don't think I've ever seen a re-listing before, and didn't understand the criteria. But I can see MBisanz didn't make the decisions on both nomination closings, so it's hardly surprising the criteria seem different. I don't mean to cause a ruckus or anything, and I won't pursue this here any longer. Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.Rosencomet (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is snowing over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Mission. Would you be so kind as to close this deletion discussion? This AfD has been open for 11 days with 13 keeps and two deletes. I would say that this kind of extension is unprecedented. Is there any good reason this AfD is still open? I have politely asked the nominator to withdraw and he has refused. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the update. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Pollack

About Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Pollack - I do think that the article that ended up being deleted wasn't that good. If I can make a better sourced article that truly shows notability, would you be interested in taking a look?

Another thing is that I wish I could slip in a response to Karanacs's mention about "trivial" - The problem is the "disagreement" has to do with how Wikipedia defines a "trivial" mention in RSes. If one says "the sources about this person don't reveal anything of importance" that's not the same as a "trivial" mention which means a source says very little to nothing about a person or thing WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I tend to not agree to review revised articles I deleted at AFD because my job was closing the discussion, not judging the article. I also like suggesting WP:AFC or WP:DRV based on a sandbox version of the revised article to make sure the community's input is heard in the recreation. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so it means I can just make a sandbox in my userspace, right? I'm working on one right now as I speak, but right now it's in a text file on my hard drive WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, you can make it in your sandbox. MBisanz ^talk 06:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty. I worked on User:WhisperToMe/Michael Pollack and I will get in touch with articles for creation. As for the original deletion debate what I should have done is try to modify or rewrite the article sooner to illustrate the new sources I have found, but in any event I now have the draft and hopefully I'll get feedback on whether it's enough or whether I need more sources. I submitted the draft to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Pollack#Michael_Pollack_.28new_version.29. Another thing is that, in the deletion debate, I notice the first two users never returned to the debate after I introduced new evidence of possible notability. I understand that the discussion had been relisted several times to try to seek additional consensus, but isn't the standard practice to discount replies which have not factored into account newly-introduced evidence and/or to wait to see if they come back and still agree that it needs to be deleted?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I've been able to find on Pollack, I think the article has grown far beyond what the original AFD discussed. If it's fine I could just move the draft article to the mainspace and see if anyone objects. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Articles for Creation is really backlogged. Also, I have found even more sources and I think the scenario has sufficiently changed. I would like to just move it into the mainspace ASAP. If you are fine with that, then please let me know. If not, do you think that DRV would be speedier, even though the article I'm proposing is radically different from the old one? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion would be to quasi-DRV it by asking User:SwisterTwister to take a once-over, as he seems to have done the most research at the original AFD and would be better positioned to say if it needs a DRV or is different enough to be a new article creation. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea! I'll ask him to take a look and see what he says WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

SJI Park

If I'm reading a page and it has spelling errors or is formatted more like an IM conversation than an encyclopedia entry, I will probably trust it less? this is a obvious bias agganst people like me who hav a serious english and spelling problem, you deleted my page "The cleaning up and building of SJI Park' you question my character with this philosopy, what facts do you base your decision onKevin Lajiness (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I base the decision to hold that philosophy on my life experience. I based the close of that AFD on the unanimous agreement of the community that the article was not suitable for Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 06:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm 53 years old , My philosophy is actions speak louder than words, and that a picture is worth a thousand words, you pass the buck with you lack of words and value something of substance based on it structure, odd for someone whom has the power to change the structure, you all had an opportunity to share this public empowerment for the good of the environment.Kevin Lajiness (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Commission appointment

Hi MBisanz. Please be aware that Jimbo has appointed you as a member of the Electoral Commission for this election. Good luck, and thank you for volunteering. AGK [•] 10:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election coordination

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Coordination#Suggested_agenda_for_the_Electoral_Commission and also my set up on the project page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)^{Superscript text}

Already there. MBisanz ^talk 18:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16

Does your close with delete for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles include K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching that. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Iranian Archaeology

Hi, could you perhaps have another look at this AfD? The article is now merged with Fereidoun Biglari, whi as far as I can see is not an editor of this journal, but simply an editorial board member. While we may mention such a fact in the board member's bio, we almost never mention board members in articles on journals. Editorial board members really are only minor players in the workings of most academic journals (mathematics journals are an exception) and there is no indication that things are any different for this journal. For these reasons I find merging with this bio not very logical. If you have a look at how it is done, it must really be rather mysterious for any reader why this information is presented there... I'd appreciate if you could have a second look, personally, I would have thought that a simple delete decision would have been more logical. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and go with the option that retained at least the redirect if it becomes more notable. Would National Museum of Iran be any more plausible a merge target? If not, I'll change my close and delete it. MBisanz ^talk 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but the problem is that there does not really exist a good redirect target. We have no article on the editor and the publisher is indicated as being the "Wahesht Mina International Institute", which appears to be different from the National Museum. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and re-closed it as delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there really any need to undo the merge? Post-merge Fereidoun Biglari seemed like it was BLP-compliant, if a little untidy. (If it wasn't BLP-compliant, please let me know so I don't make the same mistake elsewhere.) Stuartyeates (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there was a BLP issue per se, but I don't think either that this was a good merge target per the above reasoning. However, I would have no problem at all with the inclusion of a phrase like "Biglari is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Iranian Archaeology, sourced with a link to the editorial board page of the journal. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin data

Are you willing to share the admin count data (just the monthly counts) that you used to make your latest graphic? I'd like to try to do a regression to see if there is a seasonal effect (and thus extract the overall decrease from the seasonal effect, if there is one). — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's at File talk:ActiveAdmins 22-11-2012.png. Legoktm (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I played with it, but I don't have a good fit to the data, so unless I find something out it was a failed experiment. I did find the average rate of loss was about 1 admin every 5 days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Porodični Paket/Extreme Paket (Specijalni broj)

Porodični Paket/Extreme Paket (Specijalni broj) was nominated for deletion, the initial discussion was closed with the result that it was to be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osasuna VS Calgary, which in turn you closed. Could you take a look at it sort out what should happen. Monty₈₄₅ 02:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Zhivago (2nd nomination), which you closed keep, also has a bundled nomination that has not yet been deleted. Monty₈₄₅ 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Thanks for catching those. MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom election voting delay

For purposes of clarify, you or one of your colleagues should please also update the timetable in the guide on the main WP:ACE page. Also, it should be clear to everyone whether the ending date and time for the voting will also be extended by a day (or whatever length the delay turns out to be), or whether there will just be one less day of voting. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I already updated the timeline to show we'd start a day late and end a day late, but I'll double check when I get home. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Truncated graph

Hi, I noticed that you are the creator of the series of ActiveAdmins graphs on Commons. This is something that I noticed a while ago, but I hadn't bothered contacting you about it. I know that Excel often truncates the y-axis if you don't have data that goes through zero, and I'm guessing that's what happened to you. These truncated graphs bug me because they can be misleading. For instance, if you look at the graph on the left and don't notice that the y-axis truncates at 500, it looks like the number of active admins on Wikipedia is plunging toward zero at an alarming rate. The non-truncated graph on the right still shows the decline, but it's clear that there are still going to be active admins in 2 years, even if the trend continues. (It also helps if the axis labels are a little bigger.) Anyway, I thought I'd leave you a note for next time around. Thanks for doing the research and making those graphs, by the way. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ActiveAdmins 22-11-2012

ActiveAdmins 25-09-2012

Thanks for the update. My thought had been an absolute scale makes it harder to view the changes, but I can see where a relative scale will overstate the effect of the decline. I'll try to make it from a true zero in the future. MBisanz ^talk 11:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you again for making the graphs in the first place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

AFD for LPUniversity Foundation

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LPUniversity Foundation, you closed as a redirect to LPC, but that is a dab page. It should have been LPC (programming language). I've changed the redirect, but I was wondering if it is necessary to fix the AFD close to reflect the correct redirect target? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed it. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 11:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Bell Canada

Hello,

The vote for the article was 5 Keeps, 5 Deletes and 1 Merger. This is insufficient to warrant a complete deletion of the page, especially without a chance to merge the content. Thanks, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

If I put a copy in your userspace, would that be sufficient to effect a merger? MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

MAAS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MAAS. Since you had some involvement with the MAAS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Qwertyus (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Slight issues with my username change

My username in the top corner has stayed the same, yet my page edits read as Corvoe, and does my user page and all that. However, it also doesn't register the Corvoe name as having rollback rights, which I have. I noticed you were the one who changed my name, but if I need to ask someone else, just point me in the right direction. Thank you very much. -Corvoe 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazycev13 (talk • contribs)

Additional thing I just noticed: looks like it actually does think that I'm Krazycev13 even for edits. I'm sorry for the hassle. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)